Tomasz Sakiewicz, editor-in-chief of TV Republika, responded to questions from a journalist at Onet.pl regarding the collaboration between the Polish National Foundation (PFN) and TV Republika. While Onet’s report on the matter was reportedly ready, Sakiewicz’s response might disrupt the story’s narrative.
Jacek Harłukowicz, a reporter for Onet.pl, had sent several questions to TV Republika’s editorial team about “the collaboration between TV Republika and the Polish National Foundation.” His questions covered the nature of the partnership, contracts, its initiation, and any relevant reports. Harłukowicz requested responses by noon on Thursday.
“Due to the scheduled publication date, please consider this matter URGENT and provide responses no later than 12:00 PM on October 31, 2024,” he wrote in an email to the editorial office.
Sakiewicz Disrupts the Narrative
Sakiewicz responded to Onet’s inquiry with a detailed statement, which we publish in full below.
Dear Sir,
Thank you for your interest in the important project for Poland, Poland Daily. Until now, I haven’t disclosed the background of this project to preserve Polish-Israeli-American relations and trade secrets. However, since the new management at PFN has decided to provide you with information, I feel released from that confidentiality.
The collaboration agreements I know of with PFN focus on the Poland Daily project, launched in 2018 to address a crisis in Polish-Israeli relations that risked impacting our relationship with the United States. Amid growing threats from the East, resolving this crisis was a priority. At that time, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov was actively working to drive a wedge between Poland and Israel as part of a long-term strategy to limit U.S. involvement in Central Europe.
In early 2018, when signs of the crisis first appeared, I took steps to rebuild Polish-Israeli relations. I reached out to a prominent Israeli politician who advocates for better Polish-Jewish relations (I am not at liberty to disclose their name). I proposed that Poland amend its Institute of National Remembrance Act in exchange for a strong Israeli government commitment to defend Poland’s reputation. This plan gained quiet backing from U.S. diplomats.
I committed to presenting this idea to the Polish Prime Minister and other key politicians, who would relay it to the Israeli government. Simultaneously, we launched an English-language segment aimed at countering anti-Polonism and anti-Semitism. Another goal was to combat Russian propaganda directed against Poland. This program was intended for influential audiences but accessible to general viewers abroad.
The project began almost immediately, funded by our own resources despite a lack of sponsorship. We also sought support from various government sources. Despite the project’s cost, we continued without such backing, receiving financing only after the Netanyahu-Morawiecki agreement, which closely aligned with our proposed plan.
Frequent leadership changes at PFN were not fully aware of the project’s core mission, leading them to view it primarily as a commercial endeavor. This restricted the project significantly, and funding was insufficient given the scale of Russian propaganda. Nevertheless, we made use of every penny and followed the required procedures for transparency. Every episode produced, amounting to hundreds, if not thousands, was delivered to and accounted for by PFN. We strive to continue the project without government funding, hoping to expand it in the near future.
I am bound by trade secrecy on certain details, though I assume the current leadership has already shared these with you.
Please publish my full response or none at all. Given the importance of this matter, I intend to publish your questions and my responses through our own media channels.
Best regards,
Tomasz Sakiewicz
Attempt to Conceal the Questions
Onet’s employee protested sharply, prohibiting the publication of the questions he sent, claiming that such an action would “violate journalistic principles and the confidentiality of correspondence.” However, such restrictions are not legally binding.